Thursday's addressed human costs at length. I still haven't seen, for example, any media outlet note, in light of Barack's claim that the latest round of troops sent to Iraq will not see combat, that after Barack's August 31, 2010 speech announcing the end of combat missions in Iraq, 66 US troops would die in Iraq.

With Barack claiming no combat for the current crop, I think that number is significant.

We also noted the civilians in Falluja who are being killed by Nouri bombing residential neighborhoods.

I attended 3 Congressional hearings this week, none of them made it into the snapshot -- and one was about Iraq.

Iraq is on fire.

There is too much to cover.

Because there is US coverage, I've got friends asking for links to their MSM outlets. I've worked in that as I could. But there are friends who feel that I have ignored them.

There is too much to cover.

This past week, we moved from the basic of the snapshot which is really a mixture.

Instead, we went with big themes -- such as the financial cost issue.

I do think the amount of money already spent is an issue. I do think that before Barack attempts to send more troops into Iraq, he needed to explain the financial costs and that, if he doesn't. Congress needs to be demanding it.

I also think he's failed to define what the mission is.

This is as bad as Bully Boy Bush and it was 2007 before markers were finally provided to judge 'success.' I love those markers, they demonstrate the illegal war was a failure.

None of the 18 benchmarks were achieved.

They were all supposed to be implemented in 2007. Instead, everyone pretended like 'progress' on some of them was adequate.

Stop. Lloyd Doggett. US House Rep Doggett did not pretend.

He repeatedly cited those benchmarks in 2007 and 2008 hearings, long after supposed 'peace voices' like US House Rep Barbara Lee had 'forgotten' the benchmarks.

But Dems, then not in control of the White House, pretended to care about Iraq.

They wanted oversight!!!!

So Stuart Bowen's office was created (Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction).

They wanted tools to measure progress or they were cutting off funding!!!!!

So Bully Boy Bush's White House came up with the 18 benchmarks.

But the Dems didn't want to end the war anymore than Bully Boy Bush did.

So when no benchmark was reached in 2007, they looked the other way.

When no benchmark was reached in 2008, they looked the other way.

And Stuart Bowen?

With Barack in the White House, Dems in Congress wanted no more oversight of Iraq.

Oh, sure, they whined about how Hillary Clinton's State Dept was stonewalling them and refusing to give them information.

They never did a damn thing about it.

They didn't want oversight either.

It's really funny if you think about it.

I don't believe our society is over-regulated.

I personally believe business needs more regulations and that the lack of regulations caused the economic crisis.

And Dems are supposed to want regulations and oversight.

But they walked away from it, didn't they?

Not only did the Dems let Stuart Bowen's office die out by refusing to renew the original mandate, they were fine with Hillary operating with no oversight.

For Barack's entire first term, there was no IG over the State Dept.

Now look instead at John Kerry.

This issue is raised to him in an April 2013 hearing. He says he agrees with oversight and that they are working on finding an IG. By the fall, an IG has been confirmed in the role.

An IG should not be seen as an enemy but didn't Hillary see the office of such?

We weren't here in 2002 or 2003. But before the Iraq War started, when I was speaking out, I wasn't afraid of pro-war opinions or anything else. I can't make anyone think the way I think. I can speak my mind. I can try to do so in a persuasive manner.

And on that I bite my tongue because I'm entering into territory that Ava and I are considering for our piece at Third.

But I don't fear opposing views. I also don't think I get to win every argument. (Although, I honestly do believe history proves me right repeatedly.)

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.